In a verdict that is disappointing to California employment lawyers, the Supreme Court has ruled that while employers are required to provide meal breaks to employees, they're not required to enforce these breaks. In other words, should the worker choose not to take a break but continue working, the employer would not be found liable.

The decision came in Brinker Restaurant Corp. Versus Superior Court of San Diego, a case that was filed by workers of the restaurant chain Chili's. The workers claimed that they had frequently missed their breaks, and that this violated California law.

In 2001, the state had imposed a law that required companies that did not make it mandatory for their employees to take rest or meal breaks pay a financial penalty. If workers missed a 30-minute rest break, then the employer was required to pay a one-hour wage to the employee.

However, the Supreme Court now believes that the penalties are unenforceable, and that use of the rest break should be left to workers. The court held that businesses do have an obligation to provide enough meal and rest breaks to an employee, and workers have the right to spend that half hour as they wish. If they wish to continue working, then it is not mandatory that the employer force them to take a break. According to the court ruling, the employer has completed his obligation to the worker, when he has relieved the worker of duty, and has given him a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted half-hour break.

The plaintiffs did get some respite, however. The court did not dismiss outright the claims that the company violated employees’ meal break rights. Those charges will be argued again in a California court. The case could eventually become a class-action.

Celebrity chef Mario Batali, who is best known for his appearances on the television reality show On the Road Again with actress Gwyneth Paltrow has agreed to pay $5.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that he cheated workers at his Manhattan restaurant of their tips.

The lawsuit had been filed by restaurant workers at several New York restaurants owned by Mario Batali and his partner Joseph Bastianich, including The Spotted Pig and Tarry Lodge. Servers at these restaurants alleged that Mr. Batali and his partner unlawfully confiscated a portion of the workers tips, equaling 5% of the nightly wine sales. According to the lawsuit, the employers violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the management, the tips confiscated from workers went towards replacing broken glasses. However, according to the lawsuit, the tips were used to supplement the owners’ profits. The lawsuit also accused both Batali and his partner of failing to pay the federal minimum wage and failing to pay overtime wages to employees.

On March 5, Mr. Batali and his partner reached an agreement under which the two agreed to pay $5.25 million to settle the charges. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit included waiters, buses, runners, bartenders and other restaurant employees working at the New York eateries. The settlement has not yet been approved by a judge. However, once it is approved, it is expected to include more than 1,000 employees who worked at Casa Mono, Esca, Bar Jamon, Babbo, Del Pasto and several other exclusive restaurants.

All the workers named in the lawsuit will now have to distribute the settlement amount among them. California labor lawyers expect that the settlement will be divided based on the number of hours that the employees worked, and the kind of work they performed.

The Supreme Court will soon review whether sales representatives working for GlaxoSmithKline are eligible for overtime pay.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a lower court's decision which held that sales representatives working for GlaxoSmithKline are not eligible for overtime pay under federal wage and hour law. That case involves two former Glaxo salesmen who believe that an exception in the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act for outside salespeople does not include them, because representatives don't actually sell the product when they visit doctors in their offices. According to their argument, salespeople are paid to promote pharmaceutical products to doctors in their offices in an effort to influence their prescribing habits, thereby boosting sales. Glaxo says that its sales representatives are paid partly through incentives based on sales volumes and market share, and are not eligible for overtime.

In 2009, the plaintiffs won a victory of sorts when the Labor Department ruled in their favor, saying that the exception in the US Fair Labor Standards Act is applicable only when a salesperson is involved in the actual sale of a product or a consummate transaction. However, a San Francisco federal appeals court rejected the Labor Department’s interpretation of the exception. The Supreme Court has now decided to review the San Francisco court's decision.

At stake are the overtime rights of more than 90,000 sales representatives at GlaxoSmithKline. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status. California employment lawyers will be waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision because there are several such lawsuits also pending against companies like Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers, Merck and Novartis.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments next year. A decision is also expected by the middle of 2012.

Los Angeles employment lawyers can add a class-action employment complaint to the current litigious climate surrounding solar energy company, Solyndra. A former employee of the company has filed a class-action complaint, alleging that the company did not provide employees notice that it was shutting down operations.

Earlier this month, the company, which had been touted as a shining example of the future of the solar energy industry the United States, announced that it was ceasing operations and filing for bankruptcy. That decision came as a shock to its employees. Last week, the company officially filed for bankruptcy. According to the company, it is $784 million in debt.

When the company filed for bankruptcy, 1,100 people at the company lost their jobs. An engineer at the company, who lost his job when Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, has now filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.

The plaintiff had worked for the company for 4 ½ years as an engineer in the product development group. According to the complaint, the company should have given its employees 60 days notice before giving them their walking papers. It failed to do that. Instead, it let its employees go immediately, with no advance warning. While employees say that they had been aware of the troubles at the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy was immediate and shocking.

The complaint currently involves more than 100 former Solyndra employees. The lawsuit demands that the company pay its former employees 60 days of wages and benefits. His lawsuit also alleges that the company withheld hundreds of hours worth of vacation pay that he had accumulated over the years.

Four U.S. Open tennis umpires, who allege that the United States Tennis Association has underpaid them for many years, have filed an unpaid wages lawsuit against the organization. According to the lawsuit, the United States Tennis Association underpaid them by classifying them as independent contractors.

The complaint was filed in federal court in Manhattan. The umpires allege that they were paid based upon a schedule that was set by the association. They were frequently made to work more than forty hours per week, but were never paid overtime. The lawsuit alleges that the United States Tennis Association paid umpires between $150 and $200 a day.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status for hundreds of umpires who have worked for the United States Tennis Association over the years. It claims that hundreds of tennis umpires who officiated at U.S. Open matches, including main draws and qualifying matches over the past six years, have not been paid fair wages. The lawsuit seeks overtime and unpaid wages, as well as attorney fees.

The United States Tennis Association has responded to the lawsuit, saying that it is disappointed that the umpires have decided to exploit the organization. The organization says that the umpires only work for the U.S. Open for a few days in any given year, and are paid according to applicable employment laws.

Los Angeles class action employment lawyers often find that employers use misclassification of workers in order to avoid paying certain wages. For instance, classifying a worker as a subcontractor may make the worker ineligible overtime and other wages, and employers very often use these loopholes to save on payroll expenses.

California employment lawyers found themselves busier than ever with employment discrimination lawsuits in 2010. The recession saw more numbers of discrimination claims, alleging age and gender bias in the workplace. In fact, according to a new report, the year 2010 saw a spike in the monetary value of settlements in employment discrimination lawsuits.

Overall, the top 10 employment discrimination class action lawsuits in 2010 ended with settlements of $346.4 million. That is approximately 4 times the settlement amount in 2009.  The statistics come from a report, Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, which analyzes 848 decisions against employers in federal and state courts, including private plaintiff and government enforcement actions. The largest discrimination lawsuit settlement last year was a $135 million settlement by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. The case, Velez et. al. v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation alleged that the pharmaceutical company discriminated against 5,600 current and former female employees. These employees were mainly sales representatives who were denied promotions, and were discriminated against on pay.

In fact, 2010 broke new ground in that employment discrimination lawsuits were the number one workplace challenge mounted against employers, compared to past years which have seen more substantial wage and hour settlements. However, more numbers of wage and hour settlement class-action suits were filed last year. In terms of sheer numbers, wage and hour settlements were predominant in employment litigation last year. In 2010, private wage and hour settlements totaled $336.5 million, a drop of 7% over the previous year.

The results indicate that employers need to be more alert about compliance with the law. Besides, these results show that employers also need to react quicker and more appropriately when there are allegations of workplace discrimination against the company.

Fitness club chain 24 Hour Fitness is the subject of a gender and racial discrimination lawsuit filed by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and a California-based law firm.  The lawsuit claims that 24 Hour Fitness discriminates against its employees based on race and gender.  There are a total of six plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. 

According to the lawsuit, black, Hispanic or Asian and female employees at 24 Hour Fitness find that there's a glass ceiling whenever they apply for higher-paying jobs at the company.  They claim there are no specified criteria for promotions at the company.   Rather, they suggest, these decisions are arbitrary, and are usually made by white men.  The lawsuit also alleges that managers who are nonwhite, are paid lower salaries than white employees. 

The lawsuit is seeking lost wages and damages. It is also seeking class-action status.  If the lawsuit gains class-action status, then it could include more than 10,000 ethnic and female employees at the chain.  According to the plaintiffs, this practice of discrimination at 24-Hour Fitness is found across the country. 24-Hour Fitness is based in San Ramon, California, and has about 400 clubs across 17 states.

You would think that in the 21st century, workplace discrimination based on employees’ race or gender would be unthinkable.  Unfortunately, California employment discrimination attorneys continue to come across such discriminatory practices. Federal and California laws forbid such racial or gender discrimination.   Under California laws, discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or race in any matters that are related to the person’s terms of employment is prohibited.  These terms of employment can include the person’s salary, hours of work, vacation, overtime and other factors.  Not only that, employers are expressly forbidden from discriminating right from the time they place advertisements for positions in the company, through interviews, hiring, transfers and promotions.

Wage and labor violations are on the rise as companies look for ways to save a few dollars here and there.  Now, the Obama Administration, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal have focused on an unlikely subject —interns. Unpaid internships are now being investigated for being illegal as many former interns have complained of failure to provide breaks while working unpaid overtime — even suffering misclassification by doing the work of a regular full-time employee but receiving no pay. Some interns are also afraid to file complaints since it might endanger their job chances with future employers.

Officials throughout the country, including Oregon, California and New York, are looking into the legalities of such treatment. The U.S. Labor of Department now is stepping in and getting to the bottom of what investigators think may be a treasure trove of unlawful labor practices. The Department has found that most unpaid internships for for-profit companies fail to comply with federal criteria, which state that interns should in no way replace the work of regular employee and that the position should serve as a form of vocational or educational training. Furthermore, unpaid internships could cut out positions for lower income students who cannot afford to work long hours for free but don’t want to miss out on the professional development opportunities internships promise. 

Depending on what the Department of Labor finds, many of the current ways internships conduct work may actually be illegal and employers could be violating federal law. California, with one of the nation’s toughest set of labor laws, already has filed lawsuits on behalf of former interns after Oregon investigators discovered mountains of cases where unlawful intern employment practices were the norm. Class action lawsuits involving hour and wage disputes, misclassification, back pay and other issues related to interns very well could flood courthouses as these investigations continue.

With all its modern conveniences and efficiencies, working in the early part of the 21st century ain't what it used to be. There was a time when you went to the office and started working. From start to finish, you were chained to a desk in your employer's office, and once you clocked out, you were on your own. Back then, the lines between work and personal time were pretty clear.

Today, that's not true for a growing number of workers. In this age of smart phones, laptops, Wi-Fi, telecommuting and teleconferencing, work time and personal time have very soft edges. Since “work time” is no longer necessarily defined by time spent in the office, it's tougher to quantify.  There's no time clock to punch when you're working from home, so keeping track of actual work time can be tough. Questions arise about the boundaries between personal and work time, like: Even if you do work in an office, when your boss calls you while you’re driving home, or during dinner, should you be paid for that? What about job-related research you happen to do at home on your laptop?

A recent class action lawsuit filed against the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) and Utility Lines Construction Services Inc. (Utility Lines) brings this dilemma into focus. Richard Wagaman of Taneytown, Maryland, contends that he and hundreds of other current and former employees of Utility Lines and PEPCO have been defrauded and cheated out of wages. The class action suit states that the companies didn't pay employees proper overtime wages, for required computer work which was done off-site and not during regular work hours, and didn't pay for required travel time. The suit claims that Utility Lines and PEPCO are in violation of Maryland law.

With the flexibility that seems to be required by today's work environment, these types of lawsuits are inevitable. By many accounts, they are becoming more common throughout the country in many industries. One 2009 study found that wage-law violations are widespread across the U.S. Maybe we need a portable time clock that we can punch. Is there an app for that?

Hooters Restaurants, known for their skimpily dressed waitresses who wear the company’s infamously tight t-shirts and revealing short-shorts, are no stranger to controversy. Over the years, Hooters has been the target of criticism amidst cries of misogyny and the objectification of women. The company has faced hundreds of lawsuits that target everything from hiring practices to sexual discrimination. In 1997 the company, which was founded in 1983, was forced to pay over $3 million to men who were denied jobs with the restaurant chain. The latest batch of legal troubles facing the company involve unpaid overtime, lack of breaks, and unfairly distributed tips.

Hooters currently has three wage and hour class action lawsuits pending in California’s Bay Area. California is notoriously strict on employers who fail to comply with the state’s tough pro-employee laws and regulations, and legal experts have said it was only a matter of time until Hooters ran into trouble. Under California law, all current and former employees are part of any class action lawsuit. For Hooters, that group includes over 6,000 Hooters girls, dishwashers, and busboys.

According to the lawsuits, Hooters employees often worked long hours without breaks, which violates state laws regarding required breaks. Also, targeted in the suits are the company’s famous uniforms. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit claim that Hooters requires their employees to pay for their own t-shirts and orange shorts. California, on the other hand, requires that employers who demand distinctive uniforms must pay for them for the employees. In addition to the shorts and shirts, the Hooters girls must also wear Cal-Sun pantyhose, Sketchers sneakers, and special socks. Employees also state that they weren’t paid for working special events, like promotional giveaways or bikini carwashes that the chain scheduled them to work.

Nick and Shirley Trani and their son John are the owners of the Northern Californian franchises of Hooters and are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Under the name Hooters Wings Inc., the family owns and operates several branches of Hooters throughout the area as well as other fast-food restaurants. Lawyers for the family have maintained that the claims by the former employees are false and vastly overstated.

Recently, wage and hour lawsuits against Hooters have also been filed in Los Angeles and Sacramento.